Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Log/2016 September 4 - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to BitTorrent. MBisanz 00:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

BitTorrent index (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to violate WP:NOTDIC and WP:SOAP and is being used in the lede at a highly popular article The_Pirate_Bay. Objective3000 (talk) 00:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per WP:CSD#A11 (article clearly indicates that it is original research and the name of its creator matches the author of the web page it links to) and WP:SNOW. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

About a Proof of the Conjecture of Collatz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be some sort of original research, written up as a wikipedia article. As we're not a maths journal, it should probably be deleted. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC) Tagishsimon (talk) 23:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Again, like the other two towers, consensus is to delete. Any or all articles may be userfied by request if you want to attempt some other article in the future. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:41, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Campestre 105 Torre C (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Same as Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/105 Campestre Torre B Staszek Lem (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I tagged the articles for the three towers for merger, as there was little reason to suggest stand-alone articles. But there is very little reason to keep the articles anyway. They were PRODded shortly after creation but dePRODded by the creator who added references, but the references don't appear to be reliable ones. Of the three references, "proyectosdevida" is the website of the towers' construction company Bolívar, Aisa is a real estate company who were managing apartments in the towers, and Olga Miranda is a TV chef, and the reference to the towers is no longer available on her website anyway, even in an archived version, so we have no idea what she said about them (or why a TV chef should be a reliable source). The towers' sole claim to fame seems to be that they were the tallest in the country at the time, but they were surpassed within a year and so they don't appear to have any lasting notability. Richard3120 (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 08:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 23:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per Richard. All the sources provided as links are either broken or don't go directly to pages that discuss this building. No clear claim to notability for this building has been provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Note a merger of three articles could be completed without an AFD. As I just argued in related Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/105 Campestre Torre A, there is a striking need in Knowledge (XXG) for a List of tallest buildings in El Salvador (currently a redlink). The A building was apparently the very tallest building in El Salvador for a period, and certainly is among the tallest existing buildings by some reasonable cutoff. I suppose the C building, though shorter, might also rank among the tallest. Keep for now, in absence of sensible country-level list-article. An alternative would be to create the List of tallest buildings in El Salvador, copy the material here into a section on this building, and redirect to the section. I almost always disagree with AFDs about tall buildings because it is always better to merge/redirect to a valid list-article of tall buildings, at least, if not keep the article outright. Here, the nomination is premature: the focus in developing Knowledge (XXG) in this area should first be on creating List of tallest buildings in El Salvador. See Category:Lists of tallest buildings. To the closer, note this is clear direction on a way forward. --doncram 04:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete or create a list of tallest buildings in El Salvador and redirect there. With respect, I don't really follow your argument for keeping this article, or the ones for the other two towers. It should not be kept just because another article doesn't exist. If you want to keep the article, the onus is on you to provide good sources to justify that keep, not just state what should be done. If you create a sourced list of the tallest buildings in the country I would have no objections to a redirect, but as it stands it has no good independent sources whatsoever, and if we're going to keep articles without any reliable sources then Knowledge (XXG) ceases to become a reliable encyclopedia. The nomination is hardly premature: the article has existed for more than six years with no independent sources. And whoever the closer for this nomination is, it isn't their job to find "a way forward". Richard3120 (talk) 14:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I replied at "A" and "B": :*The deletion nominator brings the attention of many editors to a deficient area, tall buildings in El Salvador. I think it is appropriate for others to say don't do that in haphazard order, be organized, create the tall buildings list first. This building pretty clearly should be on such a list. Don't delete this and lose the info we have (including the fact that several people have tried and failed to find better sources), taking Knowledge (XXG) backwards. Do your homework / proper preparation / figure out if B and C buildings also should be on that list. I think it is fair and good to say go away for now, come back to AFD a few months from now if it still makes sense. Generally, we should support positive development, not negative. I certainly think the closer should be concerned about leaving a positive way forward. --doncram 20:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
It might have brought the article to the attention of "many editors", but after more than three weeks of being listed for deletion, we are the only two people discussing the article, so clearly nobody else is reading this or feels strongly enough to voice an opinion. I think we can both agree that these buildings have a single claim to fame, that they were for a very brief period the tallest in El Salvador. Seeing as they have no other notable attributes, that there are no reliable independent sources at all to back up these articles, and that they are now only among the tallest buildings in El Salvador, I agree that they are better served on a list of tallest buildings in the country rather than having individual articles. However, as nobody else feels inclined to improve these articles or create such a list, I'm afraid it might fall upon you to research and create such an article if you want the information to be kept. If nobody else adds to this deletion discussion, I believe you will get your wish – with just one "keep" vote and two "delete" vote it will probably be closed as "no consensus" and the articles will stay for the time being, which will give you time to create a list. But I think there is a good chance that if no action is taken on these articles in the meantime, they will be put up for deletion again in due course. Richard3120 (talk) 00:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Assertions of notability are, I'm afraid, just assertions (esp. "keep per editor x", if no evidence is presented by editor x). Drmies (talk) 02:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Brittney Skye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject fails PORNBIO due to lack of significant awards or contribution to the genre. There's some coverage after she "ducked under a boundary rope and ran onto the putting green during the final round of the U.S. Open golf tournament..." but that's BIO1E and can be discounted. 1st AfD closed as No consensus, and 2nd as Keep, because it was too soon after the 1st one. 18 months later, this can be revisited. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • That's because IMHO I believe she does fail GNG, If I'm wrong I'm wrong, "Stop trolling." - Is that really the best you've got ? .... Grow up. –Davey2010 23:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Run of the mill past porn performer who lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. She once got a brief burst of attention for a publicity stunt promoting a casino, but that is WP:BLP1E at best. Since her website is defunct, it seems unlikely that notability will emerge now. Cullen Let's discuss it 05:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep  No evidence that anything has changed since the first AfD.  450 film credits should allow no room to deny that this topic has attracted the attention of the world at large over time (nutshell WP:N), and has created an enduring record in doing so.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - well known, won of notable award (ok - scene), achievements beyond pornography, meets of Knowledge (XXG):GNG. Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)     21:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment -- could you help clarify which sources establish GNG? The only source that is non-primary, non-porn industry that I see is NYT but it mentions the movie that Ms Skye was in, not herself. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Maybe he just read through the first AfD and was convinced by a statement like "She has also received at least some mainstream media coverage in at least ESPN.com, The Daily Telegraph, the book Sport and Violence: A Critical Examination of Sport, Maxim UK, Playboy, Penthouse, and the Howard Stern Show." --SamWinchester000 (talk) 06:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails PORNBIO with only scene-related award win. Fails GNG with RS coverage only based on a publicity stunt. Mainstream work is only referenced by cast listings, well short of PORNBIO criterion #3. • Gene93k (talk) 09:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per Gene93k's excellent analysis. A small string of unbilled and undiscussed roles in little-remarked-on movies falls far short of both SNG and GNG requirements, and the advertising/publicity stunt generated only the thinnest of insignificant coverage. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Took part in the Top Selling Title of the Year 2002, had a very interesting scandal, wasn't listed in a 2010 Pornstar Top 12 Ranking by a popular (not porn, but independent!) magazine because of her "unimportance" and had quite a few appearances in different media. Also, I'll trust User:Guy1890, quote him saying in the first AfD "She has also received at least some mainstream media coverage in at least ESPN.com, The Daily Telegraph, the book Sport and Violence: A Critical Examination of Sport, Maxim UK, Playboy, Penthouse, and the Howard Stern Show." and therefore consider that she passes GNG. I guess the article just needs to be improved a bit by someone. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 06:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: appearances on various shows and in magazines do not help establish notability or provide RS to build bio articles; the sources must be about the subject. I've not see such sources yet. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 23:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Since you don't mention my response on this same concept at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people), here is the end of my reply, "...'of less interest'.  Why should Knowledge (XXG) editors say that we have more or less interest in a King of Denmark than in a pornbio topic with more than 100 film credits?  That is one of the main benefits of our notability guideline, that Knowledge (XXG) editors don't tell the world what attracts their attention.  You also indicate unreasonably that films, that do not expire, are "ephemera".  Again, most pornbio topics are orders of magnitude more wp:notable than 15th century kings, and gerrymandering notability to pick winners and losers undermines our policies and guidelines.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)  Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 02:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • We already did this. You realise this is an encyclopaedia and that there will be a fair few scholarly and erudite academic books, papers, dissertations about the Danish kings of the 15th century - and very a interesting and historically significant lot they are too. Did you know that this period was entirely during the period of the Kalmar Union and saw the rise of the House of Oldenburg that the current Danish Royals are descended from? Any real understanding of the interrelation between Norway, Sweden and Denmark must include an understanding of their joined and and separate histories and this comes back to the Kalmar union and before. So yes, Kings of Denmark in the 15th century are significantly more important and academically interesting that some PR/press released puffed-up article about some transient woman who has sex on camera for money to make a living. Sorry I don't shared your strangely skewed view of the world but I'm rather glad that I don't - but I bet that in 50 years people will still be interested in old kings of Denmark and this individual - well much less so. Spartaz 14:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Turns out that Margaret I, who reigned in 1401, was the last Danish female royal until the current Danish queen, and received attention in 1953 during a constitutional amendment in Denmark to allow the return of female royals.  (I think I have a DYK submission there.)  Still, in my (US-oriented) high-school history studies, we only learned about the Hanseatic league.  This is a paperless encyclopedia, so there is no need to pick one or the other of these two topics.  Nor is this a decision left to Knowledge (XXG) editors under our notability guideline.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There is some sentiment for a merge, but no reasonable merge target currently exists. Moreover, the people arguing to delete are doing so because the sources do not meet our requirements, and merging five articles into one doesn't change that. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

2011 America East Men's Soccer Tournament (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT for "Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats" and "For a games or series that is already covered as a subtopic in another article, consider developing the topic in the existing article first until it becomes clearer that a standalone article is warranted." Also doesn't appear to pass more general WP:EVENT or WP:GNG requirements. Same rational and with set precedence as Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/2012 Big West Conference Men's Soccer Tournament GauchoDude (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the reason(s) above:

2012 America East Men's Soccer Tournament (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2013 America East Men's Soccer Tournament (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2014 America East Men's Soccer Tournament (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2015 America East Men's Soccer Tournament (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:09, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 18:25, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep all - Ample coverage of tournaments in reliable sources. Article could be expanded, but AFD is not cleanup. See , , , , , , , , , , , and , which demonstrate significant coverage in reliable sources of the tournament over the years. I said at the time that the AfD cited in the nomination was erroneous, and I stand by that. These tournaments generally receive significant coverage from reliable sources, and thus satisfy WP:GNG as well as WP:NEVENT. Although it should be expanded, that's not a rationale for deletion per WP:POTENTIAL. Smartyllama (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America 11:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 11:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete all - While there is coverage in several reliable sources, as demonstrated by Smartyllama, that coverage is predominantly local coverage. WP:GNG requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Coverage of matches in local news is not sufficient to meet GNG, and several of the sources provided (specifically 5, 7, 8, and 9) fail the independence test being either the school's website or a school newspaper. I have to concluded that WP:GNG and WP:EVENT are failed. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 16:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Many school newspapers operate independently of the school, though I don't know for sure about the ones in question. Furthermore, the links on the BU website are the campus newspaper, not a university press release or similar. Is operating independently of the schools enough to qualify them as independent sources even if they're still run by students at the schools? I don't know, but they're certainly more independent than, say, the athletic website or a release from the school itself. In any case, the other sources are clearly independent, so that much is a non-issue. The only question is whether the sources satisfy WP:GNG, which as I said above, I think they do. Smartyllama (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
      • @Smartyllama: Operating independence does not necessarily mean journalistic independence; one would expect a school newspaper to report on sporting events in which the school participates, regardless of whether the publication is run by the school, by a club within the school, or by a third party. Per WP:Independent sources, there are three criteria for determining independence, the second of which is "Is this source independent or third-party, or is it closely affiliated with the subject?" (emphasis original) By definition, school newspapers are closely affiliated with the school, therefore can not be considered independent for purposes of meeting WP:GNG. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 10:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
        • @Jkudlick: Some of them are journalistically independent. I remember when I wrote for my college's newspaper, the athletic department tried to strip us of our press credentials because we covered a fight the star football player was in and they didn't like it. But they failed because we had journalistic independence and because other papers took our side. Naturally, we covered sporting events because they were of interest to our readers, but we had full journalistic independence. We had plenty of articles which were critical of the school or administration, which we couldn't do without independence. Sure, we focused on school issues and events because it was the student paper, but every paper focuses on issues that are close to its readers. That doesn't mean they lack independence. I don't know about these papers, however. They might be journalistically independent, they might not be. I'm not sure. But as I said, there are others which satisfy the requirement. Smartyllama (talk) 11:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep all these pages need sources, but there's plenty of sources available, and the articles can be improved. No reason to delete them just because the article creator didn't source them. Clearly notable tournaments. CrispyGlover (talk) 21:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 23:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Strong consensus to delete. The one keep voter who argued that there was a notable award here is encouraged to discuss this elsewhere; in the AfD there is no consensus to interpret the award as granting notability. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Angelina Valentine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails PORNBIO as the awards listed are not significant and well known. Sufficient RS coverage is not available to meet GNG. Previous AfD at the end of 2014 closed as no consensus, and I believe it's time revisit. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 23:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep - meets WP:PORNBIO. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 21:50, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

  • There is actually no higher quality award in that industry. XRCO makes no promotion (other than AVN), makes only 5 nominations per category (other than AVN), is not influenced by porn producers but only voted by acknowledged porn journalists (who are XRCO members which is not so easy to reach), only lets attend porn insiders at the show (no promotion again) and gives nominated performers the unique possibility to control who has voted for whom in order to achieve the transparency which the early awards from the 70's and 80's never had. Although being in no way promotional and held quite closed from the media, the XRCO Awards are considered the 2nd highest honour a pornographic actor could get, only the AVN Awards (with much less quality) being higher.
  • They are pretty much like the opposite of the AVN Awards and have different categories, which are not as inflated as AVN's and therefore can be taken more serious in my opinion. That's why I think that an XRCO Award means a lot. They also often have different winners than AVN and XBIZ (which is a sign for their independence) and e. g. have more male categories, as well, which is again a sign of more respectability and seriousness. Sometimes the XRCO might give out a special honour like that Deep Throat Award or e. g. when the members voted to induct Asia Carrera into the Hall of Fame, although this is normally the "Historian's" decision. Given the quality of the XRCO Awards, they're generally a big sign of notability. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 01:22, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 00:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Michael J Palumbo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN businessperson. Almost no independent sourcing (biography is from his company site), and certainly fails WP:SIGCOV. MSJapan (talk) 18:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure which sources KGirltrucker81 is speaking of; it would help if they were to list them. On the article's talk page, I've been looking at some other sources. The most significant are:
    • This book has about 3.5 pages on subject and his views. There may be some question as to what degree this is a third-party source; author (who has been one of the main editors of the article) appears to have a close relationship with subject, but it is not clear that was the situation when the book was written.
    • The VH1 documentary The Fabulous Life of Billion Dollar Wall Street Ballers, which had about 2.5 minutes on his plush apartment and lifestyle. Not sure if this qualifies as a reliable source.
    • This Marketwatch article] has about 10 sentences on him and his business, using them as example in how things were faring during a market crunch.
  • --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - I too would like to see the RS KGirlTrucker81 is referring to because most of what I found, outside primary sources, only mention him in passing. Meatsgains (talk) 20:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete I had doubts about the notability as well. The book is not a third party/independent source considering the close relation between the author and the subject. That VH1 thing is not a documentary and not remotely a reliable source. The Marketwatch source literally quotes the person and even then is not what I call significant coverage. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 00:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable venture capitalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 23:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete doesn't meet our standards for sourcing and substantial coverage. Where is the coverage in Forbes, Barron's, etc.? There isn't any. IHeartRadio podcasts of interviews do not cut it for this subject matter. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 00:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Rikki Six (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails PORNBIO as the only award listed is a NightMoves Award Best New Starlet (Editor’s Choice), which is not "well-known and significant". No significant RS coverage can be found to meet GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The overwhelming consensus from four years ago has changed significantly since then, as, finally, it is being recognised that we can't base WP:BLPs on the fictional biographies produced by the porn industry, just as we don't base articles about living people in any other field on fictional bios. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • In addition to the specialized criteria, the subject needs to meet WP:BASIC: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Additional criteria (aka SNG): "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." An SNG is not a carte blanche to ignore WP:BASIC. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep The NightMoves Award is the third oldest award in the industry given out since more than 20 years, much older than many notable European Awards, and e. g. has also built up a respected Hall of Fame. Held in Florida, it is actually the East Coast counterpart of e. g. AVN and XRCO from the West Coast. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 17:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Why should one of the two or three most important categories of an award not be notable? Anybody could write that article, I'm sure it would not be deleted, lists for award categories are pretty normal. There is also no XRCO Award Best New Starlet article although XRCO is the second highest award. Up to this date there has just nobody been who wanted to write that article. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The NightMoves Award has 48 categories, further sub-divided in "Fan's choice" and "Editor's choice". That's almost 100 awards per year -- are all of them "well known and significant"? K.e.coffman (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I said that the Best New starlet award is definitely in the Top 3 of most important categories (excluding 3 honorary/achievement categories), I said nothing about categories like "Best Boobs" or "Best Body". Also, please differentiate a bit instead of manipulating, more than half of the categories are not personal but for films, studios and websites. There are ca. 20 personal categories from which again a part is for producers. Current Performer categories are 12 (excluding 3 honorary/achievement categories). --SamWinchester000 (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete This article does not comply with our core content guideline Verifiability which says that we must "base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The claim that she won this award is referenced to XBIZ, a PR outlet which fails that standard, as do all the other sources in the article. Cullen Let's discuss it 20:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 23:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • First: sign in. It is clear that you are a sock-puppet, your contributions show it, 86.17.222.157 are used only for AfD's and from the first edition, you well know Knowledge (XXG).
  • Second: passes WP:PORNBIO#1 with NightMoves Best New Starlet award, which is well-known/significant and not scene-related/ensemble. In 2002, the St. Petersburg Times noted that the NightMoves Awards were "the third largest in the porn industry". And also passes WP:GNG - see sources in articles, some are non-pornography. Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)     22:03, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Subtropical-man - You should either back that accusation up or retract it entirely, Accusing someone of socking especially when they're not is a blockable offence, By all means take it to SPI if you truly believe they're a sock but either way you should back that accusation up now or retract it. –Davey2010 23:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • "not is a blockable offence"? 86.17.222.157 vote above and his contributions show clearly that sock-puppet (from first editions, well know Knowledge (XXG) and used only for AfD's). This is a friendly warning, if not cease such activities - take it to SPI and game over (result: blocked IP and main user-account). Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)     05:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I still don't see how the subject has met GNG by "receiving significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The article says little about the subject, and the sources in the article are not close enough to develop a reliable, balanced biography of a living person. No new sources have been presented at the AfD either. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • delete fails gng. Uncited assertions should be ignored. Spartaz 16:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with Spartaz - non-policy based assertions and claims should be ignored. Another issue, which has already been mentioned, is there are no intellectually independent sources with significant coverage that demonstrate the award is significant or that demonstrate the the subject satisfies inclusion critera per WP:NRV - and WP:WHYN explains why this is so. As a BLP, according to WP:BLP, it must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Knowledge (XXG)'s three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V), No original research (NOR)...contentious material about living persons...that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed... So, this AfD is in agreement with BLP criteria. Steve Quinn (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Also, it appears to me that John Pack Lambert, Hulabaloo, 86.17.222.157, K.e.coffman, and Spartaz present applicable policy based arguments throughout this AfD.
  • Delete The policy-based arguments above are on point. The others, not so much. I try not to enter AfD's with just a "me, too" post but I really can't say what needs to be said about significant coverage, reliable sources, verifiability and our policies about biographies of living people any better than my colleagues already have. David in DC (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to List of Dungeons & Dragons 3rd edition monsters. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 08:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Nilshai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This articles fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 22:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 22:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by User:David Gerard under criterion G11. (Non-admni closure) "Pepper" @ 03:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

SaberCatHost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Spammy/promotional, the only reference that isn't Alexa is some blog. Brand Keys ranking isn't confirmable on their site, but regardless seems dubious for an organisation that has so little coverage -- 0 hits on Google News, less than 10K on Google overall.

Disclaimer: I work for another company in the same space, but editing Knowledge (XXG) isn't any part of my job. LFaraone 21:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Discussion on article content may continue on its talk page. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 08:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Impact of the privatisation of British Rail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article does not describe its subject; for, the assertion that the described developments are consequences of the privatisation is, most likely, just false. For detailed information why I consider the article to be grossly inadequate, please see its talk page. It should also be said that I doubt that the impact of the said privatisation can be measured adequately, since this would require the exclusion of external variables, and it seems as though they are the main causes of change in this case. Mathmensch (talk) 19:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Obvious keep. This isn't some kind of personal essay, it's an intentional split of the "impact" section from Privatisation of British Rail to stop the parent article becoming over-long. No actual policy-based argument has been offered for deletion, nor do I see how one could be; "I don't like it" is not and never will be grounds for deletion. ‑ Iridescent 19:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Much of the article presents information on trends over time and allows the reader to formulate an opinion as to whether privatization was or was not the cause of the changes. The editor requesting deletion seems to regret that this was not a statistically-controlled experiment: in the real world of politics and economies, there are generally a lot of confounding variables, and one has to form a view as their significance: statistics derived from probability functions are just not available. His/her opinion that "one cannot measure the impact adequately" is, as a matter of mathematical proof, true, but irrelevant: the real world is not that neat & tidy. Comparisons across time and with other railways can provide sufficient information to draw reasonable conclusions, and if extra sources are needed (s)he can look for them. It is a pity that (s)he has not bothered to try to constructively improve the article: if it has faults then deleting the article would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Gravuritas (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep Agree with the above - this is a hotly debated topic nationally and we should allow the reader to make up their own minds. Almost all sections include information about changes due to privatisation rather than simply trends over time that are not necessarily down to privatisation. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 00:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The Modifyers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Television pilot rejected by Nickelodeon. No indication of notability. Article is largely unsourced and speculative. Trivialist (talk) 19:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti 18:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 18:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Shyam Sukhi Balika Siksha Niketan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article created by a user now blocked for sockpuppetry, about a school that fails WP:GNG and is not listed on the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education's list of accredited schools. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 07:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz 21:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti 18:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 00:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

EduTechnoz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable website (CSD-A7). promotional bio for Diana Al Dajani masquerading as an article. The article is ostensibly a commissioned work. The tag-bombing does not confer notability. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Sunmist (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Sunmist (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your feedback. I went back and edited out any mention of Diana Al Dajani so that it won't sound like a promotional bio for her. I also took out some references that may be redundant. I've been interested in education for a long time and thought, since eduTechnoz has been mentioned in the press a lot lately and has actually revolutionized the way children can learn Arabic (there aren't a lot of online games out there for learning the Arabic language), that it deserves a page. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do to improve the page.Nadiaqas (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)Nadiaqas
  • I made more edits to the tone of the article: replaced promotional-sounding words with more generic/factual ones. I believe it sounds much better now. eduTechnoz is notable and all the information provided is verifiable through multiple media outlets. If there is anything else I can change to make it better, please let me know. Thanks! Nadiaqas (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)Nadiaqas
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti 18:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 21:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 21:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete - There's just not quite enough coverage to satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. Wouldn't object to Userfying/Draftyifying if the creator thinks it will receive coverage moving forward that might increase its notability. The problem with the sources is that they're almost all connected to one of the organizations involved. This looks to be a press release, for example, and many sources reprinted this press release from the Qatar Foundation. There's some coverage of this competition, and this award, but coverage is mostly limited to sources connected to the awards/involved parties, brief mentions, or are about the founder, not EduTechnoz. This looks pretty good, but it's not enough. Sort of in response to the comment above, interviews most definitely do contribute to notability -- if it's significant coverage, about the subject of the article (rather than the person), and conducted by an independent source. There are limits to what primary sources (like the words of the founder) can be used in the article, but a journalist/editor/publication deciding someone is noteworthy enough to interview them is the sort of thing we're looking for to assess notability (it's significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject )... but there's just not enough. — Rhododendrites \\ 20:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your feedback! I did more research and found more independent sources talking about EduTechnoz. I list some below. Please let me know if those sources meet your standards and I will add them to the article:

The Peninsula: Qatar's Daily Newspaper Gulf Times Tristate Update (Powered by 13 News - WOWK) Your guidance is much appreciated! Nadiaqas (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)Nadiaqas

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Withdrawn (non-admin closure) Jbh 20:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Beverly Naidus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Knowledge (XXG)'s General Notability Guidelines, WP:PROF WP:AUTHOR and WP:NARTIST. The news articles I could find were passing mentions. The sources used in the article are not independent or are blogs. She is only an Associate Professor and her citation count is quite low with most publications in the single digits. Jbh 12:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sunmist (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Sunmist (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Sunmist (talk) 17:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti 18:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 00:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Fat, bald, mustache (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not seeing the required sources that would make this article pass WP:GNG or WP:NFILM for that matter. Half of the article is untranslated. -- Tavix 00:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America 00:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. North America 00:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, of course, the foreign language thing is not a reason to delete. I did Google the Arabic title -- I encourage more people to do that. The first result was this short item about a filmfest screening. You can use Google translate to translate it. I see here that it won a prize, maybe at the same festival, maybe at a different one. Not seeing the independent, substantial coverage that you'd want for NFILM. But I haven't looked through all of them. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
By the way, the film seems to be Persian, not "Arabic." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment the second paragraph, which at this time is yet to be translated, has links to seven different websites. Based on the google translation of the paragraph, each of those links appears to be about a different award/prize won by the film. So there appears be the "independent, substantial coverage" available, but I cannot judge the contents of those links. We really need that second paragraph to be translated by a competent translator. I note that someone has pasted the google translation to the talk page, but that is not helpful because the links are lost. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I've looked through them. They all appear to be short official news agency-type mentions that the film has won an award at one of several short and/or student film fests. Nothing there that would meet WP:NFILM, from what I can see. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 11:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti 18:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 00:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Kislay Pandey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

For being a "prominent" lawyer, I can't find any coverage other than "said Mr. Pandey" or "represented by Pandey". Thus, it would seem he fails GNG. Primefac (talk) 19:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 10:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti 17:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 00:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Love for the Elderly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

DePRODed by author without addressing the issue(s). Concern was: One blog, one YouTube video. Other researches do not reveal in-depth , independent, mainstream sources. Fails WP:ORG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 10:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti 17:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's a little coverage, but I don't think it's enough to pass WP:ORG. There's a syndicated story from KIOI, a local station, which was syndicated to many reliable sources, such as . There's also and in the Huffington Post, but, honestly, it's difficult for me to weigh Huffington Post articles very heavily, as it's basically an online tabloid that runs endless Bigfoot stories. I think it's too soon yet to create an article on this organization. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 00:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Heatherbell Pipes and Drums Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another non-notable pipe band. Ostrichyearning (talk) 23:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 10:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti 17:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:BAND and more general notability criteria. No reliable sources found, and no sources in the article other than one dead external link that was about the band's founder and not the band itself. Meters (talk) 08:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 00:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Rachna Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BASIC. As is an air hostess and the this person who is another woman, has no WP:RS sources. John Jaffar Janardan (talk) 16:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC) striking confirmed sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 03:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America 18:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America 18:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America 18:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
The page has been updated and as per citations the current page of Rachna Sharma who is a life strategist differs from the referred Rachna Sharma who is an air hostess.Jalsut (talk) 10:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
The page as per my verification page is authentic in itself. The dispute regarding similar profile shall be closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akshay0712 (talk • contribs) 10:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
As per third party citations Rachna Sharma profile as a life strategist is different from news link citing Rachna Sharma air hostess. Ujjwalgill0712 (talk) 10:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

*Comment Please don't open new/multiple WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT accounts to save this page. As you are a new editor, I won't report you at WP:SPI, as you are not aware of WP:MULTIPLE. John Jaffar Janardan (talk) 01:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC) striking confirmed sockpuppet Atlantic306 (talk) 03:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

As per the reference section, the subject is on the advisory board and global partner of Mr. Sam Beard's GIFT Foundation who has been adviser to US presidents which can be clarified through https://www.facebook.com/sambeardgift/?fref=nf&pnref=story post about the subject. As per this citation, subject is accomplished figure and amounts to great information.Donna.beard (talk) 08:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


The references cited are from proven and popular sources - newspapers/websites.Donna.beard (talk) 09:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
The citations from reputed journals and newspapers establish credibility of the page.Raghav.padhi (talk) 09:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The nominator was blocked as a sockpuppet, but some legit delete !votes came in later; also, the sources of the articles ought to be vetted. Relisting so that we can get more input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti 17:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Forgive me on not looking at photos/the top of page - I see there are two. On a side note, found this source in The Hindu that focuses partly on Sharma. Yvarta (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
While researching on her I found pretty convincing interview referring to her in detail in yourstory.Jalsut (talk) 12:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Princess Zelda. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 08:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Jun Mizusawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Known as the voice of Zelda and Sheik in the franchise, but can't find information about the actor's career. Only 16 roles in VADB. Is this enough to keep for WP:BLP1E? Recommend redirect to Zelda (character) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirect - Plausible search term, but unlikely to have the sourcing to meet the GNG for a stand-alone article. As huge as The Legend of Zelda series is, the game's historically have contained little to no voice acting - mostly just "grunts" and "laughs" and little noises like that - so that's not really much to be known for in the VA world... Sergecross73 msg me 14:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Grunts and giggles are okay, but I don't see a large voice career as with Ikue Ootani who does Pikachu or Dee Bradley Baker who does a ton of creature voices. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I just meant it as a reason why one would be unlikely to find coverage on her - I wouldn't expect to her to win any notable attention or awards for her work in working for a series that doesn't not emphasize voice acting in the least. I say this because Zelda seems to be her highest profile work - I imagine your examples above get a lot more coverage for their roles in long-term, high profile, in-syndication cartoon and anime roles rather than their Pokemon grunts. Sergecross73 msg me 18:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti 08:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti 17:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 18:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Alam Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article about an actor was first created without sources, and I PRODded it. An IP added two sources, which are not reliable, and I can not establish notability of the actor. Ymblanter (talk) 13:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep I contributed to this article because I have seen him in the main cast of various Indian tv serials. He is also seen in many tv commercials. I think he is notable. Please invite some Indian users here.-115.167.70.196 (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Khan is only 17. As a minor we should require very good sources to undermine his privacy to the point of creating an article on him. We lack such sources. We should delete the article at this time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
@Johnpacklambert: He has appeared as the lead actor in many of the TV series mentioned in the article. There are many articles without good sources. This actor is notable in India. I don't think it should be deleted. You can add notability or other tags instead. The number of tv series he has worked in tells his notability. There is no article about him on The New York Times buy still I think he's notable because he has been seen many times in television of India.-119.160.97.237 (talk) 05:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti 08:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti 17:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There certainly is no consensus to delete. Editors are encouraged to keep discussing the topic. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Ecodynamics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The term "Ecodynamics" isn't mentioned in any of the links and references listed, except in one, namely the book by Boulding. It's very uncertain if the description of Ecodynamics as listed in this article corresponds to the definition used in the Boulding book, since in-line references are referring to other sources that do not mention "Ecodynamics". Marcocapelle (talk) 08:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • keep A quick search for scholarly sources shows that the concept is clearly a notable one. Boulding's book alone has received over 900 citations. I'm not sure I have either the expertise or the time to clean up the page, but I'll take a look. Vanamonde (talk) 10:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America 18:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti 17:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 18:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Areg Shahinyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO for now .Subject is upcoming but not notable at this point at best a case of WP:TOOSOON. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 02:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti 16:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 00:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Fakhri Ughurlu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 02:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti 16:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 22:10, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Off Topic Podcast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable; has no awards, no secondary coverage, nothing to sufficiently demonstrate notability. IagoQnsi (talk) 22:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 00:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti 16:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. Please keep discussion civil. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 08:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The Princess and the Pony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not receive significant coverage for stand-alone page. First reference is an interview in which the author speaks about the book, creating conflict-of-interest. Second, briefly mentions a minor award before going into detail about other books she's published. Another source speaks about another book she wrote. The final ref does review the book, but one review hardly passes gng. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

You must stop chasing my edits and I didn't provide all reference, which are available online. Marvellous Spider-Man 16:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment


I am aware of the argument WP:OSE, still I want to mention that there are many crap articles created, which don't even find a single mention anywhere. They are created by WP:SPAs and manage to survive in Knowledge (XXG). While some strong WP:GNG articles are nominated for deletion as some users chase other user's edits. Marvellous Spider-Man 16:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - A notable author does not equal a notable book. First source you listed is a repeat of what I already explained, as is the second. Third is a prize giveaway and fourth is a simply listing.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
There are some new references for you given above. Marvellous Spider-Man 17:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, as the links above from CBC, Guardian, etc. demonstrate. My rule of thumb for "multiple" reliable sources is three, and all told we have more than enough, with reviews and coverage of the book and its award from major international media. I haven't looked into the accusation of wikihounding but that's a serious one -- and this article should never have been brought to AFD, in my opinion, as the most basic WP:BEFORE work would have shown enough reliable sources. Sometime, when we suspect an editor of something it can create a negative halo effect, and perhaps that's at work here? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - Shawn in Montreal no not really. I must have made a mistake nominating the article if you feel that way. It can be closed if you feel that strongly. I would not make such assumptions because of one comment I made nearly a month ago, but I guess that's just me. Close it or not, I will no longer participate in this Afd to avoid more irrational claims.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
@TheGracefulSlick: You could nominate articles as Jimy & Sonu Aqeel (I don't want to listen to the argument WP:OSE). Everyday 5 to 8 AFD qualified pages survive deletion process. Marvellous Spider-Man 00:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I probably shouldn't be the closer since I have participated in this Afd. I do think a WP:BEFORE search would have yielded enough coverage but it's far from an egregious case. I think it does meet WP:GNG, or how I define GNG, but it's close enough that others may disagree -- though I think they'd be mistaken. Anyway, I won't non-admin close this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, meets WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG. Reviewed by kirkus - "(star review), As majestic horses, iconic warriors (from Genghis Khan to Robin Hood), and cool tools are juxtaposed with Pinecone and her vacant-eyed pony, differences in stature, weaponry, and achievement are cleverly emphasized. .. Instead of breaking bones, this warrior princess breaks the mold—and Beaton is in a class of her own.", Publishers Weekly - "Beaton champions a bouquet of affirming themes: strong girls, acceptance of difference, and battling with nothing more violent than dodgeballs, spitballs, and other related objects. It’s a smart, brisk story that tosses aside conventional ideas of what princesses (and ponies) are “supposed” to be.", National Reading Campaign Canada - "With superb comedic timing and memorable characters, The Princess and the Pony is a surefire storytime crowd pleaser.", Quill & Quire - "It would be easy to assume, based on this book’s title, that it is nothing more than another bit of inconsequential fluff designed to sate the bottomless appetites of six-year-old girls for all things princess-ified and ponyish. But The Princess and the Pony is the work of Kate Beaton, the brilliant, wryly insightful comics artist behind the web comic Hark! A Vagrant (collected in two volumes published by Drawn & Quarterly), and in her capable hands the princess story is elevated to new levels of complexity, joy, and pure hilarity. .. There are many ways to express how stupendous this book is (a star, two hooves up, 5/5 pony farts), but only one thing to say about Kate Beaton: now that she has entered the world of picture books, the kidlit crown is hers for the taking.", The Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books - "This is the first foray into picture books for Beaton, author of the popular Hark! A Vagrant webcomic, and her signature wit is on display here. Once past the setup, the plot doesn’t always make a ton of sense, but the absurdity and gleefully irreverent tone compensate. .. This is a princess book that could break gender boundaries, appealing to fans of Scieszka and other irreverent authors, and it will provide a stepping stone to early graphic novels, particularly Simpson’s Phoebe and Her Unicorn", The Globe and Mail - "To call something cute is pretty much an insult in our culture right now. Often presented as a compliment, calling something or someone cute usually dismisses them as powerless and weak. The wonderful new book by Kate Beaton turns this idea on its head.", The Guardian - "In a new children’s book, Kate Beaton gently subverts the idea that ‘strong female heroes’ have to kick ass – and provides a lesson for adults too", St. Louis Post-Dispatch - "Kate Beaton’s charming book “The Princess and the Pony” (Scholastic, 40 pages, $17.99; ages 4-8) will also get young readers giggling with the gassy but lovable title animal. .. The princess and pony, drawn with wide eyes and blocky limbs, are immediately appealing, and Beaton adds little details — a fist bump between a warrior and his horse, a spectator wearing a foam hand — that give the story a modern edge.", Booklist - "(star review), The perfect combination of heartwarming and hilarious." and School Library Journal - "VERDICT A highly recommended, charmingly illustrated tale of teamwork and tenderness.-", CBC Radio listed it as one of six books to read during the holidays - "Should I Read It: Holiday Book List, A story for little girls and boys that turns the standard princess narrative on its head. .. It's adorable and hilarious.", an article in The Chronicle Herald - "Beaton new princess of kidlit" discusses the author and a bit of background on the book and pony, and WorldCat shows it is held in over 1000 libraries - . Coolabahapple (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep has plenty of critical attention. I'll add the information to the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article does need some expansion still but the critical attention needed to get it past WP:GNG, and a credible claim of notability as a winner of a noteworthy literary award, are present. Bearcat (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to UK Adult Film and Television Awards. MBisanz 00:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Carmel Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails PORNBIO and the GNG. No nontrivial biographical content. No reliable sourcing for biographical content. Only independent sourcing deals with the title of a single film the subject appeared in, which does nothing to establish her own notability. Prior AFD did not reach consensus on whether the UKAFTA awards meet the "well-known and significant industry award standard" of PORNBIO; it has since become clear that they do not because: 1) it was not an industry award, but a personal moneymaking project of one individual and a production company he was associated; the industry group which supposedly sponsored it denies any connection to the awards ; 2) the award was "pay-for-play", with even an award winner acknowledging that "it seemed that all it took to win awards was a few phone calls to the right people and an advance payment for a full table at the event"; and 3) the awards were notoriously given to unrelased videos , and even to non-existent/never-released videos (see, for example, Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Jamie Brooks (actress) (2nd nomination). This is a BLP with no verifiable content concerning the article subject and her work, and that alone compels deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete after following along with the nom's analysis it is clear this subject, and noticing the supposed reliable sources do not provide significant coverage, I can see this fails GNG and therefore BLP. And I guess I shouldn't be surprised by the underhanded activities recounted by the nom. As a BLP, according to WP:BLP, it must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Knowledge (XXG)'s three core content policies: Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V), No original research (NOR)...contentious material about living persons...that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed...Steve Quinn (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete I've looked for reliable sources about this person, as opposed to about Cameron/Hug a hoodie. I can find none. The award is not an industry award. A biography of a living person without significant coverage in reliable sources should be deleted, under our rules. David in DC (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete -- no coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirect to UK Adult Film and Television Awards, because the subject is mentioned there. SSTflyer 08:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Redirect per SSTflyer. Is mentioned on Awards page, but no reliable sources for standalone article, and majority of that article discusses Cameron's speech anyway. This is Paul (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. I'm going to close this as keep given 78.26's arguments, including the comment on notable artists on the label; one may find support for a claim of notability for such a label at WP:BAND, item 5. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Fellside Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not seem to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Last AfD in 2007 when our standards were much lower. Boleyn (talk) 16:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • delete if it doesn't get proper sources very soon - David Gerard (talk) 00:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. Highly notable label. Greatly influential in the English folk genre. 40 years of history. Numerous notable artists. Numerous notable releases. I'll look for more sources, but check how often the label is mentioned at the BBC. It is a crying shame a label this significant has existed here for so long without any sources whatsoever, (and not that I'm familiar with it, typical myopic American and all that I am) but this is not a reason for deletion. If this isn't a notable label, I don't know what is except perhaps the major labels. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I was surprised at the lack of actual sources. Would there be any on paper? - David Gerard (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure. I don't think this label seeks the type of attention so desperately sought by most of the internet labels that constantly are trying to gain exposure through Knowledge (XXG). I'm going to check at my library, but I actually won't be able to access it until after this AfD has closed, unfortunately. I do wish I had access to British media trade magazines, I was surprised I couldn't find anything in Billboard. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 16:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. As 78.26 said, it is notable enough. Rizhopper (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: I guess it's going to be one of those cases where there have been plenty of records by notable artists released on the label (Jez Lowe, Peter Bellamy, A.L. Lloyd, Greg Russell and Ciaran Algar, etc. etc.), but that doesn't actually translate into any articles or sources about the label itself. I am not at all surprised there's nothing in Billboard – a US trade paper isn't going to spend much time looking at the British folk scene. Music Week *may* have an article on the label in one of their issues, but it will be a big job looking through 40 years of back issues (they are in the British Library at St. Pancras in London) to see if there's anything. The only major music magazine in the UK to take folk seriously was Melody Maker, where Colin Irwin edited a weekly column, but the magazine phased out their folk section in the early 80s (again, these are in the British Library). I think the best bet for sources will be books which are dedicated to a history of English folk music. Richard3120 (talk) 03:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Addendum: the article isn't improved by having that looooong list of every single record released on the label, though. Richard3120 (talk) 04:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely agreed. That comes off as very promotional. A simple numerical listing discography is fine listing catalog number, artist, and album title is useful, but if an album is important enough to contain all that information, there should be a separate article for that album. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 00:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Logan Shaw Brewing Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Brewery was never launched, has only one reference from five years ago. Fails WP:NCORP. Bangabandhu (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete Actually the article has no references. It has one dead external link to the company's own website. I can find no sources showing this company exists, only 2010/2011 reports of its intention of setting up business. It's not clear from what I found that they ever finalized the purchase of Wild Goose or of leasing space for a brewery. Meters (talk) 08:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Looks like a failed start up. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. I found a blog post which comments on plans to open, but nothing turns up since and nothing about its products or operations. The company website is indeed a dead link. I could find only one other mention in a brewery database site which only echoes the blog posting. Appears there was never enough there to be notable. Geoff | 17:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 00:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Connie Williams (author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable author. WorldCat shows the two books only in her own university library; they may be self-published. Awards seem very minor DGG ( talk ) 14:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 00:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

10-Fluorocannabidiol diacetate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PRODded, dePRODded, rePRODded and back again. Rules are rules, so I have taken this to AfD. This compound fails WP:GNG, having only been described in one primary source as an inactive compound. Might become a WP:SNOW delete. --HyperGaruda (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. --HyperGaruda (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 00:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Andrew C. Banfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Highly promotional article on an academic that doe not pass WP:PROF. No published books, only a few journal articles, none cited more than 9 times DGG ( talk ) 13:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was article returned to userspace. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Harvey Silbert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Knowledge (XXG):General notability guideline and the more detailed Knowledge (XXG):Notability (biographies) requirement. While the subject have been mentioned in passing in (mostly local) media, which the creator skillfully combined into an otherwise impressive biography, there are only two sources about the person, both obituaries. One from Variety, which is certainly a reliable source, but it is short and does not differ from much from obituaries of that person which are clearly identified as paid for (ex. ). The second obituary is a bit more extensive, through it also seems like a rewritten version of the paid-for ones, and comes from a local newspaper and as such is not seen as sufficient for notability (see Knowledge (XXG):Notability/Noticeboard/Archive_1#Obituaries for a related discussion). I had to think hard about this, there are also numerous mentions in the books - but all are in passing, at best defining him in several sentences (the best one I found is here: Gus Russo (12 December 2008). Supermob: How Sidney Korshak and His Criminal Associates Became America's Hidden Power Brokers. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 13. ISBN 978-1-59691-898-6.), something to be expected as the subject has been identified as a personal lawyer to several notable figures, and so often makes an appearences in biographies about them or such, but notability is not inherited, and his philanthropic activities, while certainly laudable, have not generated any in-depth coverage. A non-notable university award was named after him, and perhaps some buildings/etc., but please note that mentions in passing, whether on Google or in newspapers or books, are not sufficient for being notable. In other words, nothing here seems to be a match for NBIO. Of course, I'd be happy to consider arguments to the contrary. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

It's now in userspace. Piotrus, please stop watching my contributions and trying to get every new referenced article I create deleted. FORGET ME.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Under WP:CSD#G7 author requested deletion Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Bandit 1250F (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I created this page by mistake, forgetting the marque "Suzuki". The intended article was Suzuki Bandit 1250F. Sorry. Je suis Nigérian (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 22:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Jarlaxle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not establish notability. As part of the Drizzt series, there should be much more potential than many of the other articles, but I'm not seeing anything relevant myself. TTN (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • What exactly do you mean to accomplish by showing some random guy's misguided comments? You'd have a point if that AfD ended as "Keep, character is obviously notable", but the end result was no consensus. TTN (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • What I mean to accomplish is the following: to establish that there is a precedent for keeping (or at the very least, not deleting) articles on fictional characters appearing in novels or novel series, when those characters are observably "major" characters. I will point out that the AFD referenced above is for a character article of a major character in the same series as Jarlaxle; and that said article was subsequently AFD'd a second time, where it was unanimously kept - and further unanimously kept after a subsequent deletion review. This suggests to me that while the author of the above linked comment may indeed have been "some random guy", he was not, evidently, misguided.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • There is not and has never been a precedent of any kind. The fact that a similar article was kept has no bearing on this one. While I agree that this article should have potential as a major character in a long running series, the reality is that it does not currently establish notability and nobody has provided compelling evidence to the contrary. Your argument has no basis in guidelines or policies. TTN (talk) 20:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 22:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Erevis Cale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This character article does not establish notability. The quote from the review is a trivial descriptor, and unless it actually contains true discussion on the character, the source should just be removed. TTN (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 13:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The source is a review of the novel. While such reviews can certainly be used to establish the critical reception for a character, the way this review is currently utilized is trivial. Most reviews of works will mention the primary characters in some context, but not every review will be valid in establishing notability for those characters. If the review goes in-depth on the character development, that would certainly be a legitimate indicator of notability. The current scope of the citation does not indicate that. TTN (talk) 14:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 00:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Recognize (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only sources for this record are directories. There is no indication of notability, other that by inheritance (which, of course, is fallacious). Guy (Help!) 12:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep or redirect to album - multiple Billboard chart placings. WP:BEFORE for these sort of things involves searching on " site:billboard.com", where I found: Hot R&B Songs #14, 17 January 2015, R&B/HipHop Airplay #34, 10 January 2015, Hot R&B/HipHop Songs #47, 17 January 2015. This establishes that the record is prima facie notable in its own right. Obviously we need other sources, so if we can't find those then redirect to the (chart hit) album, PartyNextDoor Two - David Gerard (talk) 15:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Redirect to the album is fine by me, the chart positions seem to me not to qualify as these are not the main charts. There are so many subgenre and "up and coming" charts now that virtually everything will get a placing somewhere. Guy (Help!) 15:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Comment: Guy, since the guides on notability in music were written (which I imagine were more than a decade ago), the music industry has changed so much, and I'm not sure the Knowledge (XXG) notability criteria have kept up with those changes. The move from physical sales to digital downloads and now charts which are dominated by streaming means the goalposts have moved: getting a gold disc in the US and other countries used to be a proper feat... now as we can see it can be achieved without your single even reaching the Billboard Hot 100. This has had the effect of making pretty much every single notable, because they normally chart on one of the multitude of different charts and/or reach a minimum of a gold certification. Richard3120 (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Minor national charts are explicitly noted as evidence towards notability in WP:NMUSIC. (I really really want a good source on past DAC entries so I can rev up the industrial music coverage ...) I do concur that Billboard's selection can get a little silly at times (other countries don't seem to do this nearly as much), but then it does cover a market of a third of a billion people - David Gerard (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - Agreeing with JustDoItFettyg and David Gerard, but I prefer to keep the article itself. Xboxmanwar (talk) 02:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. The song is charted on Billboard which makes it notable enough. - Rizhopper (talk) 15:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - sufficient coverage exists to satisfy WP:NSONGS. I have added references from which, among other sources, info on the song and its video can be used to expand the article.  Gongshow   talk 21:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 00:40, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Jenzil Skerritt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The first person from $ARBITRARYCOUNTRY to secure $ARBITRARYFUNDING for $ARIBITRARYSPORT. Guy (Help!) 11:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete He is an athlete at Danville Area Community College. He is not even playing in the NCAA, which might mean his basketball playing would get some media coverage. No, he is playing at the junior college level. Even NCAA men's basketball players are only notable in very rare cases, most of the articles we have on such are on those who went on the NBA and became notable there, or became notable baksketball coaches, or played basketball at the Olympics, and of those who do not meet one of these three criteria I would not be surprised if we are more likely to have articles on them for totally unrelated to basketball reasons. This is one of the most non-notable people I have ever seen an article on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable JUCO player. Although, depite what the user says above, I have seen articles on even less notable folks. ~EDDY ~ 22:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete, I couldn't find anything on him. BlackAmerican (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete - can't find sources that indicate he meets GNG Rikster2 (talk) 10:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus to delete per WP:NSEASONS, article creator and sole substantial contributor requests deletion. No need to keep this open for purely bureaucratic reasons. Fenix down (talk) 08:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

2015–16 Sydney FC Youth season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article on a season of a team playing in a youth league and the second tier of a semi-professional state league; clearly fails WP:NSEASONS. Was prodded, but prod removed by article creator with some WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS rationale posted on the talk page (to which I would respond that it is not the same as either case as (a) Barcelona B compete in a fully-professional league (Segunda División) and so pass WP:NSEASONS and (b) the formation of Wimbledon was a high-profile event caused by the extremely controversial decision to move the original club to Milton Keynes (and personally I think the Wimbledon season article should probably be deleted too, but that's not for discussion here). Number 57 11:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 11:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 11:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 11:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 11:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 11:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 00:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Jaime Alvarez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Heavily promotional article about a non-notable MMA fighter. Does not meet WP:NMMA. Most of the article and references read as a promotion for an event that he will participate in and what will happen if successful. He does not meet WP:GNG. Original PROD was dePROD'd by the original editor.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Like the A tower, I'm happy to userfy, but there is more support and more policy rationale for deletion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

105 Campestre Torre B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page does not meet the Knowledge (XXG) Standards for notability. As such, it has no place on this site ThadeusOfNazereth (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I tagged the articles for the three towers for merger, as there was little reason to suggest stand-alone articles. But there is very little reason to keep the articles anyway. They were PRODded shortly after creation but dePRODded by the creator who added references, but the references don't appear to be reliable ones. Of the three references, "proyectosdevida" is the website of the towers' construction company Bolívar, Aisa is a real estate company who were managing apartments in the towers, and Olga Miranda is a TV chef, and the reference to the towers is no longer available on her website anyway, even in an archived version, so we have no idea what she said about them (or why a TV chef should be a reliable source). The towers' sole claim to fame seems to be that they were the tallest in the country at the time, but they were surpassed within a year and so they don't appear to have any lasting notability. Richard3120 (talk) 19:36, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 08:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't agree with the nominator. A building that was known to be the tallest in the country is notable. Note a merger of three articles could be completed without an AFD, but it is not appropriate to delete all three by AFDs, which is what is proposed. AFDs should not have been opened. As I argued in related Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/105 Campestre Torre A and Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Campestre 105 Torre C, there is a striking need in Knowledge (XXG) for a List of tallest buildings in El Salvador (currently a redlink). The A building was apparently the very tallest building in El Salvador for a period, and certainly is among the tallest existing buildings by some reasonable cutoff. The B building, though shorter, is taller than the C building and my guess is that it also may rank among the tallest. (Was the B building the tallest for a while before A was?) Keep for now, in absence of sensible country-level list-article. An alternative would be to create the List of tallest buildings in El Salvador, copy the material here into a section on this building, and redirect to the section. I almost always disagree with AFDs about tall buildings because it is always better to merge/redirect to a valid list-article of tall buildings, at least, if not keep the article outright. Here, the nomination is premature: the focus in developing Knowledge (XXG) in this area should first be on creating List of tallest buildings in El Salvador. See Category:Lists of tallest buildings. To the closer, note this is clear direction on a way forward. --doncram 04:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete or create a list of tallest buildings in El Salvador and redirect there. With respect, I don't really follow your argument for keeping this article, or the ones for the other two towers. It should not be kept just because another article doesn't exist. If you want to keep the article, the onus is on you to provide good sources to justify that keep, not just state what should be done. If you create a sourced list of the tallest buildings in the country I would have no objections to a redirect, but as it stands it has no good independent sources whatsoever, and if we're going to keep articles without any reliable sources then Knowledge (XXG) ceases to become a reliable encyclopedia. The nomination is hardly premature: the article has existed for more than six years with no independent sources. And whoever the closer for this nomination is, it isn't their job to find "a way forward". Richard3120 (talk) 14:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • As I reply in the "A" discussion: The deletion nominator brings the attention of many editors to a deficient area, tall buildings in El Salvador. I think it is appropriate for others to say don't do that in haphazard order, be organized, create the tall buildings list first. This building pretty clearly should be on such a list. Don't delete this and lose the info we have (including the fact that several people have tried and failed to find better sources), taking Knowledge (XXG) backwards. Do your homework / proper preparation / figure out if B and C buildings also should be on that list. I think it is fair and good to say go away for now, come back to AFD a few months from now if it still makes sense. Generally, we should support positive development, not negative. Seeing a positive way forward, rather than one which shuts down contributors and blocks progress, should certainly be the closer's main concern, IMHO. --doncram 20:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
It might have brought the article to the attention of "many editors", but after more than three weeks of being listed for deletion, we are the only two people discussing the article, so clearly nobody else is reading this or feels strongly enough to voice an opinion. I think we can both agree that these buildings have a single claim to fame, that they were for a very brief period the tallest in El Salvador. Seeing as they have no other notable attributes, that there are no reliable independent sources at all to back up these articles, and that they are now only among the tallest buildings in El Salvador, I agree that they are better served on a list of tallest buildings in the country rather than having individual articles. However, as nobody else feels inclined to improve these articles or create such a list, I'm afraid it might fall upon you to research and create such an article if you want the information to be kept. If nobody else adds to this deletion discussion, I believe you will get your wish – with just one "keep" vote and one "delete" vote it will probably be closed as "no consensus" and the articles will stay for the time being, which will give you time to create a list. But I think there is a good chance that if no action is taken on these articles in the meantime, they will be put up for deletion again in due course. Richard3120 (talk) 00:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No arguments to keep were presented; one of the editors who could have done so blew their chance. Drmies (talk) 03:18, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Hacoupian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any secondary sources for this company that meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Also, the periodic attempts to replace the article with copyvio spam are pretty irritating. —Cryptic 10:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

  • I've just had to revert the removal of the AfD tag and restoration of the copyvio spam again. Under normal circumstances I would look for sources to see if this could be saved from deletion, but in the face of such behaviour I will not do so. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 11:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: There is clearly an editor behaviour issue here (which is not part of the material discussion at AfD), but I notice that the user had not been advised on their Talk page. I have now placed a first-level notice about removing AfD templates. AllyD (talk) 12:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks for rectifying my omission. I agree that editor behaviour is not a reason for deletion, but it can influence the decisions of volunteer editors about whether to spend time helping with an article, and so indirectly lead to deletion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete: There is a page on fa.wikipedia.org but, judging by a Google Translate, it is fully promotional in tone and lacking in better sources. The firm does seem to be included in a list of Iran's 100 valuable brands (translating as "Hakobyan": ) but I am not seeing evidence that this is more than a run-of-the-mill retailer without encyclopaedic notability. AllyD (talk) 12:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • On the off chance someone who speaks Farsi sees this and can provide any insight as to what the "300,000 permanent subscribers" in the article should have actually been translated as, that might be helpful. That vague claim was the main reason I didn't bring this to afd a year ago when it was first tagged for speedy. —Cryptic 14:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
@Cryptic: As stated here, anyone having a purchase greater than 2,000,000 rials (roughly equal to 70 dollars) can become a subscriber after submitting a form. Subscribers can have some discounts and probably other such facilities. Dalba 11:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to TiE. MBisanz 00:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

TiE Bhubaneswar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not independently notable chapter of TiE. Mostly promotional content - some of it replicating redundant information of the main article. Sources do not meet the requirements of WP:BRANCH to establish independent notability for a stand-alone article. Ref #1 is a local news portal founded in 2012, #2 is self-published, #3 a trade magazine with routine coverage. GermanJoe (talk) 10:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 10:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 10:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 10:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz 00:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

League of Women Voters of Florida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN local chapter of the national organization League of Women Voters. The majority of the sourcing in this article is not independent. The materials are either from the League itself or are primary sources. WP:NOTNEWS applies to much of their activity coverage. Article creator likely has a conflict of interest. MSJapan (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Delete: Agree with nominator. Any salvageable material can be merged into the main League of Women Voters article, but there's not enough independent sourcing to justify a standalone article. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This AFD is an example of WP's ongoing WP:RECENTISM problem. The League of Women Voters was a major mid-20th century civic organization, a player in Florida as in most (every) state. It is far, far less important today (an ironic outcome of the success of the women's movement, but I digress). This article needs to be sourced and improved; doing so would make an excellent project for a Florida history or women's studies class.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Source This (Carver, Joan S. "First League of Women Voters in Florida: Its Troubled History." The Florida Historical Quarterly 63, no. 4 (1985): 383-405. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30152979.) description puts the origins of the Florida LWV (Palm Beach, 1920) into a fascinating context to do with southern attitudes towards women's suffrage and "Yankee" political organizations muscling their way into Dixie.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
And that's already in the article, which you apparently didn't read before voting here. MSJapan (talk) 17:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I see now. The lawsuit is mentioned, but no these sources. there is no doubt that the article needs improvement. Nor is there doubt that the topic is notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, scanned the article, missed that. It is, however, my usual practice at AFD to pay less attention to what is already on the page, than to the intrinsic significance of the topic. Given that you have looked closely, would you reconsider this AFD? The LWV was such a major player in the 20th century, and, in Florida, it looks as though it continues to be a major statewide power in Florida see this: ] in Florida Today, a major daily.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
No, because it's still a local chapter of a national organization per WP:CLUB, which we only know about this because of an editor with a COI - the article was written by someone involved with it, and the majority of the sources are affiliated people and affiliated websites. In short, the people claiming they're a major player are the people involved with the organization. There's almost nothing independent of the organization for sources, or the sources don't really support the claim. At least 3/4 the sources are no good, and that's on a quick perusal.
Moreover, local coverage is local coverage, period. There are plenty of groups that post their meetings in the paper, and have done so over a long period of time, but that doesn't make them notable. They're still local, just like this group. To add a corollary to your "recentism" problem, just because it's online via the Internet doesn't make the coverage any less local than it would have been in the paper. If you want to claim longevity, then coverage in a non-local daily once in 75 years is not going to be enough. A flash in the pan is still a flash in the pan. If the plaintiff in the lawsuit was a person, they'd be BIO1E for that lawsuit if that was their only claim to fame. I personally fail to see any wide-ranging effects - districting has always been an issue in state politics, and the districts are redrawn fairly regularly everywhere. Importance is being placed here because of lack of knowledge of the overall situation in the country. What it comes down to is that the only people saying they're a "major player" are people from the organization itself. MSJapan (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Local coverage does not make a topic non-notable. No where in the guidelines or policy does it state that. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
This is a significant topic with a paltry article. The question at issue is the notability of the topic, not the sourcing in the article as it stands.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Sources
  • Electoral Dysfunction: A Survival Manual for American Voters, Victoria Bassetti, The New Press, includes a detailed discussion (some pages were blanked out in my search; page #s did not appear) to the Florida LWV's voter registration drive and the way it was terminated by the threat of fiscally ruinous politically-motivated law suits in 2011.
  • The Politics of Disenfranchisement: Why is it So Hard to Vote in America?, Richard K. Scher, Publisher, Routledge, 2015 includes a similarly long section, in chapter "Keep You From Voting? Yes We Can! in page range 90s.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Women of the American South: A Multicultural Reader, Christie Farnham, NYU Press, 1997, p. 214 discusses the complexities of the National American Woman Suffrage Association in 1923 changing itself into the League of Women Voters of Florida is some cities, but in other Florida cities using other names because of the complexities of race and questions about black women voting and joining (complicated stuff).
  • These sources are only a sample of what is out there. The League has been a major force in Florida politics for almost a century, the plaintiff in a list of major legal cases on a range of civic issues, and Florida, of course, is larger than most sovereign countries.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I'm glad to see the use of non-neutral language now that you're the "champion" of this organization - it helps to show where there's no strength of material to support your newfound cause of choice. I'm sure they appreciate it, though. Two sources from 2011 does not make an organization "a major force" for almost a century. Here's the question: in your clearly encyclopedic knowledge of what the LWV does, does the Florida chapter do anything different or out of the ordinary as compared to some other LWV in some other state? If not, they're not notable for simply carrying out their mission statement on a local level, and the argument that a state is larger than a country is also irrelevant. The size of a state doesn't make a difference to notability of anything contained within it. By the way, that's your fatal error here. You're making the assumption that they're acting way out of line with respect to the rest of the organization by what they're doing, and yet you don't know a thing about it other than the sources you have found. In short, confirmation bias - "they're notable because I think they are, and here's my cherry-picked sources to prove it." You're generally pretty good at snowing people into believing that two pages or (two words) in a book is significant by citing the book without the scope of the content, and then paraphrasing it how you think it went, but that's not how this works. MSJapan (talk) 04:01, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  10:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Note That I clarified the distinctive origins of the Florida LWV on the page, sourcing it to an academic article from which a detailed history of the League in the 1920s can be sourced, including its rupture with the national LWV over feminism. It is clear that 1.) the FSLWV of the 1920s played a significant part in women's issues (women's right to serve on juries; women's right to control property independently of their husbands) in Florida. 2.) that the LWV as reorganized in Florida in 1939 was a more general,non-feminist organization, 3.) that it again played a significant role in recent decades in Florida politics, on civil rights/voting rights issues and as plaintiff in a number of important legal cases on the state level. 4.) that a good article can and should be written on this organization - although it has not been written yet.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Sources demonstrating the contemporary & independent notability of the LWV - Florida:
  • League of Women Voters joins effort to expand solar energy, Miami Herald
  • Reed: 'Liberal' League of Women Voters has owned GOP Florida Today
  • League of Women Voters of Florida calls for special session, tighter gun laws, Naples Daily News
  • League of Women Voters takes on gun control, Orlando Sentinel E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - E.M. Gregory has done a great job rescuing this article; the article and the refs now added to it show historic significance. Neutrality 22:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep - Clearly meets WP:ORG and WP:GNG. Nice work @E.M.Gregory:. Hmlarson (talk) 04:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep E.M.Gregory's work on this had convinced me. As for the insinuation from MSJapan that E.M.Gregory has "snowed" the other keepers (and me too) into !voting keep, first of all, I think that's uncalled for as E.M. Gregory has laid out a thoughtful case and found information on a topic that's difficult to research. Even a few pages in a book can be significant when you are researching these topics. The Journal article is an excellent find as well. In addition, I'll add a few more references to support the Notability outside of the local sphere (some are via database): No Constitutional Right to Be Ladies, a book which discusses a 1949 case where the FLVW was heavily involved, Review of Florida Supreme Court case with FLVW written up in Urban Lawyer, Palm Beach Post, NY Times coverage... I'll add any references brought up here into the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. The general rule is that we do not keep articles on the state branches of national organization--and indeed we have no article on any of their other branches. The national organization is very highly notable, but there is insufficient reason to break the pattern for this particular state one. According to WP:GNG, the mere fact of meeting GNG does not imply we must necessarily have an article where there is a larger inclusive article. That rule was meant for cases like this. Those using the technical ability to meet the GNG with relatively insubstantial sources need to be aware that the rule does not mean what they seem to thing, that meeting it ids the only consideration that there should be an article. DGG ( talk ) 07:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
I can flip that logic: just because we don't have an article on other LWV local organizations, doesn't mean we shouldn't have one here, or for other local chapters if they have contributed significantly to US politics (as the Florida chapter did). There are, in fact, significant sources used in the article and discussed above. DGG's insinuation that the sources brought up here and in the article are "relatively insubstantial" seem to show that he did not really evaluate the sources at all. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted as WP:A11. Just Chilling (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

N.U.D.T.Z. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm pretty sure this term is made up by the editor. I can't find any reference to it elsewhere, certainly not in relevant technical journals and not even in general search engines. Lithopsian (talk) 09:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Ethan Cross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of any notability. References are social media or to his day job as a publisher's marketing manager called Aaron Brown . No evidence given for the claim to have penned a National Bestseller (sic). Looks like self promotion. Earlier PROD removed. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  23:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. JudgeRM (talk to me) 23:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JudgeRM (talk to me) 23:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

*Delete as per WP:DEL4. Mere WP:PROMO No valid sources brought. my quick search found none for this author. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC) oops. just rechecked myself. His genre novels may be selling. there is a possibility that this PROMO may be sourceable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment - interesting source.......... so best-selling actually means given away in exchange for any old second hand book you can lay your hands on. Hmmmm... I'll have to think about that one.  Velella  22:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
cute. funny, actually. But the article is about a major German publishing house, Bastei Lübbe, teaming up with a retailer to give away what I presume is overstock (almost all bestsellers end their moment of popularity by leaving cartons of unsold books on the publisher's hands). Here's the publisher's website , explaining that Ethan Cross is the pen name of an American named Aaron Brown. What impresses me about this is the fact that a major German house has picked up rights and is reprinting the work of an American author of thrillers. This validation of this writer's popularity makes this article a probable keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular (talk) 00:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 03:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 04:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 00:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

BCC Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CORP: fails to establish notability; all citations are in-passing mentions, ditto for past 6 months of hits on HighBeam. Brianhe (talk) 09:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Brianhe (talk) 23:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Rovio Entertainment#Other_games_developed_by_Rovio. czar 05:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Bounce Tales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Similar pages have already been deleted at least twice (see Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Bounce Tales and Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Bounce (video game)). No notability is established and the only sources are simply websites where one can download the game. Topher385 (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 00:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Technology universities (Pakistan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is just a numbered list of 2 articles. Fails WP:WHATNOT, unlikely that it's supposed to be a disambiguation page due to the title. Dat GuyContribs 09:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Dat GuyContribs 09:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Dat GuyContribs 09:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Even if it were meant to be a disambiguation page it is unclear what it is meant to contain. Universities with "technology" in the name? Any university with a technology-related programme? Citobun (talk) 10:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America 18:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 15:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 00:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Golden Jazz Fusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:MUSIC. Adam9007 (talk) 01:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America 11:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Sam Sailor 00:28, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete No coverage to be found of either the artist or the song as the only coverage featured ("The Akademia") seems to be some sort of paid coverage: , , and so on. Mr. Magoo (talk) 01:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 15:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 00:43, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Lifespans of parrot species (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced affair, not enough for a stand alone article. WP:LISTCRUFT and unnecessary. The Banner talk 07:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 00:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Jamaluddin Al-Jailani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Badly translated, badly sourced and overly promotional Jac16888 12:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America 13:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. North America 13:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti 19:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 08:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

(Redacted) 64.134.243.113 (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Struck as trolling. — PinkAmpers& 15:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Sorry but this is way too badly translated and is eligible for a TNT delete at this point. I also doubt the accuracy of the article considering that the name itself seems to be mispelled. I don't have knowledge of Arabic so I couldn't look at Arabic language sources. But I'm unable to find any coverage in English language sources. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 00:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Planetrise Cultural and Environmental Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A rather promotional article with no independent sources at all, and no evidence of satisfying Knowledge (XXG)'s notability guidelines. The article was previously deleted by DGG under speedy deletion criterion A7 (no credible indication of importance). It was then re-created by the same person as before (a single-purpose account), with virtually no changes. In my opinion it still qualifies for speedy deletion criterion A7, but since its author has re-created it, I decided to start a discussion, to settle once and for all whether it is considered suitable, rather than risk starting a create/delete war.

As I said above, the article cites no independent sources at all. I searched for information, under both the English name and the Hungarian name (Földkelte Kulturális és Környezetvédelmi Egyesület) and found Knowledge (XXG) (both English and Hungarian), other wikis, FaceBook, sites which merely list basic information about businesses and other organisations, and other pages barely mentioning the organisation, but nothing that could possibly be regarded as substantial coverage in an independent source. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti 19:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 08:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 2/1 (including nominator) to delete, but more importantly, no information presented why it meets criteria. I'm sympathetic to doncram's frustration and willing to put it in his user space, but if we only consider policy based rationales, delete is the proper course of action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

105 Campestre Torre A (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Same as Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/105 Campestre Torre B Staszek Lem (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment: I tagged the articles for the three towers for merger, as there was little reason to suggest stand-alone articles. But there is very little reason to keep the articles anyway. They were PRODded shortly after creation but dePRODded by the creator who added references, but the references don't appear to be reliable ones. Of the three references, "proyectosdevida" is the website of the towers' construction company Bolívar, Aisa is a real estate company who were managing apartments in the towers, and Olga Miranda is a TV chef, and the reference to the towers is no longer available on her website anyway, even in an archived version, so we have no idea what she said about them (or why a TV chef should be a reliable source). The towers' sole claim to fame seems to be that they were the tallest in the country at the time, but they were surpassed within a year and so they don't appear to have any lasting notability. Richard3120 (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 08:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep, in absence of a List of tallest buildings in El Salvador (currently a redlink). The building was apparently the very tallest building in El Salvador for a period, and certainly is among the tallest existing buildings by some reasonable cutoff. An alternative would be to create the List of tallest buildings in El Salvador, copy the material here into a section on this building, and redirect to the section. I almost always disagree with AFDs about tall buildings because it is always better to merge/redirect to a valid list-article of tall buildings, at least, if not keep the article outright. Here, the nomination is premature: the focus in developing Knowledge (XXG) in this area should first be on creating List of tallest buildings in El Salvador. See Category:Lists of tallest buildings. To the closer, note this is clear direction on a way forward. --doncram 04:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete or create a list of tallest buildings in El Salvador and redirect there. With respect, I don't really follow your argument for keeping this article, or the ones for the other two towers. It should not be kept just because another article doesn't exist. If you want to keep the article, the onus is on you to provide good sources to justify that keep, not just state what should be done. If you create a sourced list of the tallest buildings in the country I would have no objections to a redirect, but as it stands it has no good independent sources whatsoever, and if we're going to keep articles without any reliable sources then Knowledge (XXG) ceases to become a reliable encyclopedia. The nomination is hardly premature: the article has existed for more than six years with no independent sources. And whoever the closer for this nomination is, it isn't their job to find "a way forward". Richard3120 (talk) 14:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • The deletion nominator brings the attention of many editors to a deficient area, tall buildings in El Salvador. I think it is appropriate for others to say don't do that in haphazard order, be organized, create the tall buildings list first. This building pretty clearly should be on such a list. Don't delete this and lose the info we have (including the fact that several people have tried and failed to find better sources), taking Knowledge (XXG) backwards. Do your homework / proper preparation / figure out if B and C buildings also should be on that list. I think it is fair and good to say go away for now, come back to AFD a few months from now if it still makes sense. Generally, we should support positive development, not negative. And a positive way forward is what a closer should be looking for, IMHO. --doncram 19:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
It might have brought the article to the attention of "many editors", but after more than three weeks of being listed for deletion, we are the only two people discussing the article, so clearly nobody else is reading this or feels strongly enough to voice an opinion. I think we can both agree that these buildings have a single claim to fame, that they were for a very brief period the tallest in El Salvador. Seeing as they have no other notable attributes, that there are no reliable independent sources at all to back up these articles, and that they are now only among the tallest buildings in El Salvador, I agree that they are better served on a list of tallest buildings in the country rather than having individual articles. However, as nobody else feels inclined to improve these articles or create such a list, I'm afraid it might fall upon you to research and create such an article if you want the information to be kept. If nobody else adds to this deletion discussion, I believe you will get your wish – with just one "keep" vote and one "delete" vote it will probably be closed as "no consensus" and the articles will stay for the time being, which will give you time to create a list. But I think there is a good chance that if no action is taken on these articles in the meantime, they will be put up for deletion again in due course. Richard3120 (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 00:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Naser Saremi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR .Lacks third party sources about the article subject or even his works. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 02:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 06:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 00:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Najir Hussain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR for now upcoming but not notable at this point. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:43, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 02:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 02:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 06:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 00:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

At Stockholm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to satisfy the notability criteria. FamblyCat94 (talk) 05:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America 06:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti 19:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yellow Dingo (talk) 00:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist -- Dane2007 06:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 06:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 00:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Popstar Diaries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about TV show that may lack notoriety for the English wikipedia Nicnote (talk) 10:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America 11:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America 11:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti 19:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 00:42, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist -- Dane2007 06:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 06:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 00:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Majithia Sirdars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've had this page on my watchlist since the previous AfD closed, intending to rewrite it based on reliable sources. I have now tried to do this, and found the available sources insufficient to write an article. There are a few mentions in old journals, but that's about it. Individual members of the family might be notable, but the sources don't seem to exist for the family as a whole (unless they are not in English). Cordless Larry (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America 08:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 08:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti 19:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 00:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist -- Dane2007 06:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane2007 06:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 00:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Availability, salience and vividness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

If terms are strongly related their relationship can be explained in the article of each term, we don't need an additional article that combines the terms. Besides in this particular case it is unclear/questionable whether these three terms are related at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Delete, agree with nom, Knowledge (XXG) is not a dictionary, nor are articles meant to about collections of terms, especially when they are weakly or doubtfully related. If they are important in social psychology then they may form part of a brief discussion there, suitably cited. As this stands, there's nothing worth merging. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 00:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Varun shrivastava (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Some notability exists, but in it's current form the article is highly promotional and looks like PR work. Also, many links are PR articles. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 13:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 02:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America 03:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Keep- Going by the words of nominator, the article needs a NPOV template at most. No reason to delete it. Pratyush 09:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PratyushSinha101 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 00:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Hashim Al-Hindi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO. Adam9007 (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Confirmed sock. -- The Voidwalker 21:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 02:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 00:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Ben Davis (Selmer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Only source is a book by his daughter, Josephine. Boleyn (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 02:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz 00:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

All Tvvins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable musical group, fails to meet WP:MUSIC. Admittedly, I could be converted based on Adam 9007's comments on the article talk page. Thanks, Adam9007 for the follow up. reddogsix (talk) 01:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America 03:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. North America 03:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. In addition to the links on the talk page there is a lot of articles primariliy about them or their work:
Garratt, Rob (22 August 2016), "Album review: All Tvvins's debut LP llVV delivers deceptively smart, head-nodding material", The National
"LISTEN UP", Irish Independent, 13 August 2016
Murphy, Lauren (12 August 2016), "ALL TVVINS IIVV HHHHWarner Bros", The Irish Times
Carroll, Jim (12 August 2016), "Double exposure", The Irish Times
Murphy, Lauren (7 August 2016), "Tvvins Peak", Sunday Times
Garratt, Rob (2 April 2016), "Review: All Tvvins fail to impress the crowd in Dubai", The National
Ward, James (22 January 2016), "All Tvvins have had a busy year", Irish Mirror
Also available are less convincing but easily accessable resources. .
Enough for GNG. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Some links duffbeerforme (talk) 09:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. WP:GNG seems to be met. (Per GeoffreyT2000, there would seem to enough coverage in reliable sources where the band are the primary subject of the articles. If they were fleeting mentions, GNG/SIGCOV would likely not be met. But as the band are the primary topic of those articles, GNG would seem to be covered.) As regards WP:NMUSIC, that would seem to be met based on the verifiable charting of the album w/o 19 Aug 2016. Looks OK to me. Guliolopez (talk) 09:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

AVN Award for All-Girl Performer of the Year (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This "product" produced by AVN Magazine (Adult Video News) is not covered in independent reliable sources and uses only industry related promotional materials, and one twitter feed for references. Knowledge (XXG) is not a platform for promotion WP:PROMO. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CORP Steve Quinn (talk) 02:22, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete Our core content policy Verifiability requires that we "base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." A third-party source is "one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered". This article about an Adult Video News pornography award has six references, all of which are published by the AVN. These sources do not meet the policy requirements for verifiability. I made a good faith search for reliable, independent sources covering this award and found nothing. Therefore, the article fails the General notability guideline as well. Cullen Let's discuss it 06:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
I didn't know we have "sub-articles" on Knowledge (XXG). I never heard of stand-alone sub-articles. Per GNG there are stand-alone articles, but nothing about sub-articles. H-m-m-m-m. How does shortening and relieving the main article satisfy GNG? How does being a "matter of structure" satisfy GNG, and ORG? Steve Quinn (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I don't always know the right words to use in :en as I'm from the German Knowledge (XXG) and just occasionally stepped across that, yeah let me call it a crusade. I'm not even that much interested in porn articles and only might here and there rarly read some of them, but I felt I had to do something against that unmatched actions.
So how would you call an article like that? Because, technically it could be part of the main article but that might cost a bit too much place. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
Sam, I did not know your opinion was posted by a someone who is from the German Knowledge (XXG). I apologize for thinking you naturally speak English. However, your English is very good. What I meant is this is an article just like any other article - it is a Main space article and it does not claim to be a List article - although I suppose it could appear to be a list article. And list articles are also mainspace articles. I am guessing you have the same on the German Knowledge (XXG). Welcome to English Knowledge (XXG). And you are always welcome to post your opinion at AfDs. I wish I had the ability to participate in German Knowledge (XXG) AfDs, that would be fun, but I don't speak German. Steve Quinn (talk) 04:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
It's OK. I just wanted to point out that I might not be too experienced with technical terms from the English Knowledge (XXG). Yeah, using a dictionary I'm able to find the right words and phrases, usually. However, is there a formal difference between lists and articles, e. g. with the requirements for notability? Because if not it wouldn't matter if it was a list. If there is a difference theoretically we will just need to rename it as List of winners of the AVN Award for All-Girl Performer of the Year?
Actually, in the German Knowledge (XXG) articles like this one are mostly considered removals/transfers from the main article for pure place reasons and therefore don't need to meet any relevance criteria (the German requirements for articles) on their own as long as the main article does. The sense would be to have the place to properly discuss the issue of the AVN Awards in a well-arranged way while the many winners are listed in linked sub-articles per category. (It's not already like that with AVN Award, but it has been the aim in the past.) Also the nomenclature would probably be de:AVN Award/All-Girl Performer of the Year (not existing) just like de:Seinfeld/Episodenliste in order to show that articles belong together but in fact the naming (with or without list) won't make any difference (e. g. de:Ballon d'Or is a featured list). They are considered lists, and – as you might know – lists can be made on so many trivial things. Would you say that statistic articles like List of awards received by Britney Spears or List of Borussia Dortmund players meat GNG?
Finally, little Fun Fact: The German relevance criteria for pornographic performers have been existing since 2008. While they have originally been much stricter than the English criteria for many years they will now – without any change (except for excluding scene awards) – propably be loosier than the English ones. ;) --SamWinchester000 (talk) 02:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
P. S.: I've noticed that the English article Ballon d'Or is a featured list as well (without saying "list" in the title). --SamWinchester000 (talk) 08:45, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
The requirements for List articles are the same for prose articles - both must have topics that meet the notability criteria WP:LIST. In this instance, whether the article is "list" or "prose" we would probably be having this AfD anyway. And from your blurb at the end, it appears that "List" in the title is not necessary. It does make senses. For example, I use to think it was necessary to bold the title in the first line in the intro of the article. Then someone pointed out "No need to bold title in intro; see WP:BOLDTITLE, which explains that we only bold the title in the intro if it is a "formal or widely accepted name" . So, I guess the point is, all these little editing items are not set in stone and the WP:MOS takes this into account.
I think what you are calling "removals/transfers" on German Knowledge (XXG), are called "Article spinoffs" on En. Knowledge (XXG) WP:SPINOFF. As far as I can tell, this article is not one of those. Even if it were, it must meet the standards for a stand alone article per GNG, ORG, wp:product, and so on. Pertaining to the Britney Spears article - the topic appears to be notable by establishing, yes, she is Britney Spears :):) and she was, at first, nominated for Grammy awards (in 2000) and then won some notable awards (beginning in 2005). Pertaining to the "List of Borussia Dortmund players" - I have to wonder if this merits its own article. I can agree that this team is probably notable, but the criteria for listing these players seems arbitrary (I am chuckling about this). I think we should move the demarcation to 107 games :) Steve Quinn (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Comment - page archived to: http://archive.is/7FvDx

You can revive the article in the future by retrieving the former contents there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.119.99 (talk) 05:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 00:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Gaby Borges (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject doesn't appear to meet WP:NACTOR. Adam9007 (talk) 02:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 00:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Burntisland and District Pipe Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Again, with all due respect, not notable. Ostrichyearning (talk) 23:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 10:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 01:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 00:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Rhode Island Highlanders Pipe Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another non-notable pipe band. Ostrichyearning (talk) 23:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:48, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 10:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 01:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 00:45, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Alexandria Pipes and Drums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another non-notable pipe band. Ostrichyearning (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:51, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 10:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 01:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete. I took a look for sources and all I could find were passing mentions and concert notices. Thus, I could find no evidence that the subject meets the notability guidelines.--Mojo Hand (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 00:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Southwest Alternate Media Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"credits in three films"and co-sponsor of a single years award is not notability. Everything cited else is from their own site, or Imdb. DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:02, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 10:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 01:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 04:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Russell pine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Biographical article which is significantly copied from the subject's website. Earwig shows this quite clearly ]. Unclear if subject is notable enough for their own article. Majority of references are to the subject's own website, or other conspiracy websites with no evidence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Written in very promotional tone. Cowlibob (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 10:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 01:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  17:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Ruiner Pinball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet WP: NGAMES. The subject is a pinball simulator for an obscure gaming console and, so far as I have been able to determine, was insignificant even in the context of that console's library of exclusive games. There are three sources in the article, but none of them establish notability. Specifically: The first one is just the instruction manual. The second... I can't read the language, but skimming over the article, it looks like Ruiner Pinball is only mentioned in a simple list of games coming out for the Atari Jaguar. The third is a review in Next Generation, which is useful, but since Next Generation reviewed every single game that was released in North America at the time (and many that weren't!), it does little to show notability. Martin IIIa (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. Added two four more reviews and a meta score for now. --Tochni (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:36, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Video Game Critic is considered an unreliable source, since the site is by a lone author with no editorial oversight. GamePro, like Next Generation, reviewed virtually every game released at the time, and having a copy of the actual issue in which Ruiner Pinball is reviewed, I can confirm they only gave it one of their "Quick Hits" reviews consisting of three sentences or less. Atari HQ runs into a similar problem; an Atari game being reviewed on an Atari fan site is hardly a sign of it being notable. As seen here, Atari HQ has reviews of nearly every Atari Jaguar game.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
What about Electric Playground and the other reviews at mobygames? --Tochni (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
See our list of vetted sources. Also we need to verify that those reviews actually exist instead of using the aggregator... czar 03:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 10:46, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 01:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Belated response here, but I feel I should emphasize that my opinion that this article should be deleted isn't just motivated by lack of sourcing. My belief is that for every article on Knowledge (XXG), we should have an answer to the question, "What makes this important?" (I realize this is not a popular belief, but I do think it is in keeping with Knowledge (XXG) policy.) With Ruiner Pinball I just don't see any possible answer to that question.--Martin IIIa (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

It is the Latoya Jackson of video pinball games so it should be important. It may not important for you but the article may important for others for example for me especially since I am very dedicated in Pinball related Knowledge (XXG) articles. --Tochni (talk) 15:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
You're talking about importance to individuals, essentially "I like this game" vs. "I don't like this game". I'm talking about importance in the larger sense laid out in WP: Notability, and more specifically WP: NGAMES, which is what counts for keeping or not keeping an article.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. The scant material in the article needs TNT, but here's the deal. We have a review in Next Gen, and Mobygames lists reviews in Electric Playground, GamePro, and VG&CE (all vetted review sites). Four reviews in major publications is sufficient for notability, but only if anyone actually pulls the publications and can show that the reviews exist (we can't trust Mobygames's user-submitted content). To Martin's statement, with which I tend to agree, I'd put this game on par at least with the shovelware of today, which gets reviews but is ultimately fated for obscurity. We tend to keep these topics if only to be the only source on the Internet that provides a bibliography for games of even small notability. I think Knowledge (XXG) will focus less on these in time and focus more on good writing than simply bibliographies, but right now it's the only Internet site in the game. czar 19:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Though it obviously doesn't help my case for deletion, in the interest of being completely honest I must say that I have a copy of the GamePro issue in which Ruiner Pinball is reviewed, so that one at least does exist.--Martin IIIa (talk) 01:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 00:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Syed Muhammad Kaswar Gardezi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. It also fails WP:V as noted in the previous AFD. Most of the material in this article has been provided from three accounts which from the account names appear to be relatives of the article subject.Further the subject has not held any public office .Now in the Multan Chambers of Commerce & Industry website he is not listed here among the past presidents.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 10:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 01:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 00:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Mik Current (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Minimally sourced article about a band with no strong claim of notability per WP:NMUSIC. The strongest claims here are charting on a couple of individual radio stations (whereas NMUSIC requires an IFPI-certified national chart on the order of Billboard, if you're going for notability because chart hits) and having been favourably reviewed by a blogger who also previously (but not in this instance) wrote for Spin. And that's exactly what we've got here for referencing, too: blogs and a single-station chart. Nothing here is a credible notability claim for the purposes of encyclopedia, and there's no reliable sourcing here that would satisfy WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America 00:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 00:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. North America 00:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 11:01, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 01:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 00:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

PhysicsFS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:RS in current state. Usage examples have been either deleted in previous AfDs for lack of notability, or link to other editable encyclopedias (not including Allegro), which link back to the primary source for reference. This page would need to be improved a lot to meet the quality standards. Article was created in 2011. WubTheCaptain (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2016 (UTC) (edited: 15:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC))

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WubTheCaptain (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WubTheCaptain (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 01:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 00:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Varien (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Highly self-promoting and referenced to soundcloud, youtube and the like. I don't know whether he is genuinely notable enough for an article, but this isn't it Jimfbleak (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC) Jimfbleak (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 01:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America 01:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 01:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 00:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Elena Shemankova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Knowledge (XXG)'s General Notability Guidelines and WP:MUSICBIO. The only RS mention I could find was a passing mention in Taos News. Everything else is social media and fan sites etc. Jbh 19:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jbh 19:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Jbh 19:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 01:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. Her career is interesting in its relation to the Red Elvises, but she lacks other significant coverage that I can see (at least in English on google), and isn't a member of a second project proven to be notable. Perhaps if those criteria were met, it would be an easy recreation. Yvarta (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 00:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Box Butte County Sheriff's Office (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Why the page should be deleted

This article has no relevant information that can't be found on the Box Butte County Website. All it contains is the address and the current Sheriff. All of this can be found on the website. Because of this, there is no point of keeping the article on Knowledge (XXG).

Box Butte County Website Sheriff sub-page

Battlesnake1 (talk) 18:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Procedural Note I have added the AfD Template to this nomination. It was not listed at AfD until the time of this comment, please consider that when closing. Monty845 22:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 01:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America 01:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America 01:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
That's not how this works—each article is judged on its own merits czar 04:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 00:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Caillou Pettis (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR. Recreation of protected page Caillou Pettis. Mostly unreliable sources. Contested PROD. Adam9007 (talk) 01:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America 01:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America 01:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. There were no !votes for deletion, except as per the nom (which were unconvincing as the article was fully sourced even at the time of filing), and concomitantly no cogent arguments for losing the article, even though this has been open nearly three weeks. There were, however, repeated proofs made of notability, through reliable sourcing. The behavioural issue is being discussed, as stated, at WP:ANI. (non-admin closure) Muffled 15:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Religion Communicators Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Being nominated to deletion due to lack of notability and lack of reliable sourcing PoetryFan (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC) — PoetryFan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete - The article was given 7 days to avert deletion and no valid arguments were presented to countermand deletion and no noticeable improvements were made to the article. PoetryFan (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC) — PoetryFan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
comment The deletion page was created more than a week ago but never added to the log, and there was no afd2 template at the top; I have now added the template to this page and the nominator added it to the log yesterday. I have no current opinion on whether the article should be deleted or not. --bonadea contributions talk 07:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Comment: I have struck through PoetryFan's !vote as (s)he is already the nominator. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep it's vitally important to search for all three names that this organization has used since its founding in 1929. For example, searching for its previous names, one finds this and this in Speaking of Faith: Public Relations Practice Among Religion Communicators in the United States, published by ProQuest. Taken as a whole, along with the Gnews hits, most of whom seem to be from a religious new service, or its Wilber Award, covered here by the Star-Banner news service, I believe we do have enough. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep I was able to find numerous reliable sources -- which are included in the current article -- and I am not really clear which policy this article hasn't met. Alicb (talk) 13:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 01:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America 01:49, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Gawad Plaridel Award (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This university department award does not appear to be notable outside the university. Being a recipient of the award may make that recipient notable, and the person for whom it is named may be notable, but the award itself has not attracted the non-trivial attention of reliable independent sources. Google Books shows 6 hits, five of them misdirected ones, one mentioning someone as a winner of the award. KDS4444 (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Keep Part of this deletion argument seems nonsensical to me: how can an award "make that recipient notable" yet somehow not be notable enough for its own article? Furthermore, the reliance on Google Books refs seems curious, when there are abundant news refs as well, such as this one. Anyway, a Gnews search reveals enough that the award merits an article, I should say. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep there's a lot of mentions of this awards in reliable sources. There's many articles that are focused on the winners of this award, and they're about multiple people in multiple years. This wealth of coverage convinces me that the award is notable. ArchieOof (talk) 22:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 01:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) — Sam Sailor 01:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

G. W. Choudhury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article should be deleted as it is an orphan source, violates notability guideline and has POV issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.148.3.14 (talk) 08:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America 01:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America 01:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America 01:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. North America 01:50, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz 00:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Thursday Night Football (NRL) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable as an article on its own, lack of references -- Whats new? 00:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Whats new? 02:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Whats new? 02:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was : Keep - Nomination withdrawn. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Teddy Together (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nintendo game released this year, no third-party references, fails to establish notability. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  1. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-05-26-one-of-japans-most-terrifying-3ds-games-is-being-localised-for-the-uk
  2. http://www.kotaku.co.uk/2016/05/26/teddy-together-sees-a-sentient-bear-invade-your-3ds
  3. http://www.nintendolife.com/reviews/3ds-eshop/teddy_together_3ds
  4. http://www.siliconera.com/2016/05/24/teddy-together-localization-kuma-tomo/
  5. http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2016/05/teddy_together_promises_kid-friendly_confidence_building_on_3ds
  6. http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2016/07/video_nintendo_begins_pushing_teddy_together_on_uk_childrens_television
  7. http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/news/42736/teddy-together-announced-for-europe-australia
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑